The ministers from 196 countries, their entourages of staff, UN bureaucrats, and corporate executives flew to Dubai in private jets and on first-class tickets. They stayed in 5-star hotels, ate beef in the finest restaurants, and were chauffeured in expensive C02 belching luxury limousines to and from the talkfest at taxpayers' expense. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be wasted on this extravagant display of corrupt excess. And don't forget their massive greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. Never forget that.
The COPs have been a total failure as the rate of greenhouse gas emissions continuously increases. The international agreements are worthless as the targets are not being met.
They are a giant ostentatious virtue-signalling waste of C02 emissions and taxpayer money.
The total emissions from COP26 in Glasgow was estimated at 102,500 tonnes. That figure does not include the emissions of flights related to companies, observers,and activists. King Charles massive carbon footprint at COP 28 will not be counted.
About 60% of the summit emissions are estimated to have come from international flights, while other large contributors included accommodations for delegates and participants, policing and security for the event, transportation to and from venues, and local energy, water, and waste management.
At COP27, around 315 private jet journeys took place.
We don't have the final C02 emissions tally for COP 28, but we know it will be the biggest carbon emitting event ever. And its tallied carbon footprint will not include the emissions of flights related to companies, observers, activists, and others participating in the climate fair-like space known as the "green zone."
It is little wonder countries never abide by these agreements. They have no credibility by attending them in the first place.
Quote from: Thiel on December 14, 2023, 09:10:16 PMThe ministers from 196 countries, their entourages of staff, UN bureaucrats, and corporate executives flew to Dubai in private jets and on first-class tickets. They stayed in 5-star hotels, ate beef in the finest restaurants, and were chauffeured in expensive C02 belching luxury limousines to and from the talkfest at taxpayers' expense. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be wasted on this extravagant display of corrupt excess. And don't forget their massive greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. Never forget that.
Yep, it's all bullshit. Any agreement they reach aint legally binding. China, India, and other developing countries ignore it while goofy countries like Canada pretend the world will burn in less than ten years if we don't reach our targets come hell or high water.
Justine and Steven Guilbeault went to Dubai in private jets promising to slit Canadians throats.
https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/business-leaders-blast-ottawas-unnecessary-and-unacceptable-oil-and-gas-emissions-cap/?fbclid=IwAR1OPTMXCWN3EX6u-awgwYjraR6OB9VMqEFTDGo7-87A7N-S2y1ZcjfjZA4
On the world's current trajectory, oil and gas will still account for 46 per cent of world energy needs in 2050, down only moderately from 51 per cent in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency.
Industry leaders argue that Canada's oil and gas producers are already on the path to net zero emissions without the need for the cap.
According to Environment and Climate Change Canada's latest report to the United Nations, emissions from so-called "conventional" (non-oil sands) production declined to 26 megatonnes in 2021, from 34 megatonnes in 2019.
Producers in Alberta have already reduced total methane emissions by 45 per cent compared to 2014, hitting the target three years ahead of schedule.
Oil sands emissions did not increase last year despite production growth, and total emissions are expected to start going down before 2025, according to S&P Global.
"Imposing an emissions cap on Canada's oil and gas producers, who are already achieving significant emissions reductions as shown in the federal government's own data, is unnecessary and unacceptable," the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada said in a statement.
A cap on Indigenous opportunity
The Indigenous Resource Network (IRN) – which advocates for Indigenous participation in resource projects – said the cap would be "devastating" for Indigenous communities.
"A pathway to self-determination is being achieved through the ownership of oil and gas projects and involvement in the sector," said IRN executive director John Desjarlais.
"This would result in a cap on Indigenous opportunity in the oil and gas sector."
Desjarlais said the IRN is seeking an exemption from the cap for Indigenous communities who are engaged in oil and gas development.
He said the proposed cap directly contradicts the government's promises on reconciliation and its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
I saw this recently too.
Usually at this time of year, we can expect to see the compliant news media reporting on alarming Christmas temperature increases. Often, it is reported that recent Christmases or New Years were the warmest in hundreds or thousands of years.
In order to arm you with the facts concerning Christmas temperatures, I asked our Science and Research Associate, Byron Soepyan, to look into what the data tell us about this. He accessed the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and looked at maximum temperatures for the Lower 48 states in the U.S. and compared that to atmospheric CO2 levels.
What we found surprised us. The maximum temperatures on this date vary quite widely, but there is no discernible trend either increasing or decreasing.
Sleep well... there is no Christmas Climate Crisis.
(https://files.constantcontact.com/c9e43177001/9e9f4361-76c2-4d8b-80c4-ac0ef13e57fe.jpg)
Basically, most world leaders should be literally crucified. CO2 isnt a pollutant, period. If you believe it is, you should be executed publicly.
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is right. Change my mind.
Quote from: Oerdin on December 15, 2023, 07:06:31 AMDr. Bjorn Lomborg is right. Change my mind.
He's a denier. Did that change your mind? If it didn't, I give up.
He is not a denier. Not even remotely. He has repeatedly said he believes climate change is real and happening and that man is definitely contributing to it but that the world won't "end in ten years" the way the cultists claim. What he has done is logically argue about what is the best course of action to adapt to climate change and reduce the impacts of climate change.
In fact, he wrote a whole book about it. Maybe try to look it up and see what he has to say because it makes a lot of sense on how best to deal with a changing climate.
Quote from: Oerdin on December 15, 2023, 07:30:11 PMHe is not a denier. Not even remotely. He has repeatedly said he believes climate change is real and happening and that man is definitely contributing to it but that the world won't "end in ten years" the way the cultists claim. What he has done is logically argue about what is the best course of action to adapt to climate change and reduce the impacts of climate change.
In fact, he wrote a whole book about it. Maybe try to look it up and see what he has to say because it makes a lot of sense on how best to deal with a changing climate.
I know that. I was being facetious.
A climate advocate after Bjorn Lomborg's heart.
Takeaways from the UN Climate Conference
The summit revealed a growing realization that market-based solutions to climate change need to have a seat at the table.
As a climate advocate who believes in market competition, I can tell you that exporting US innovation, instead of succumbing to pushes for massive wealth transfers, is how we catalyze economic prosperity while reducing worldwide emissions. Many of the solutions at COP28, to be sure, focused on having the United States and other developed nations subsidize the world's energy consumption or prematurely divest from fossil fuels. There was even a panel on "responsible yachting," which is especially out-of-touch.
Yet, there was also a silver lining that we haven't seen at previous COPs. This was the first summit at which nuclear energy truly played a central role. In Dubai, 22 countries, totaling more than 50 percent of global gross domestic product, pledged to triple their nuclear power production by 2050. In a similar vein, the nuclear industry had a much larger seat at the table than usual.
Though the usual climate activists criticized the industry having a larger seat, the fact that they were there shows a growing realization that tackling climate change is impossible without energy industry players at the table. Although several of my fellow conference attendees wanted to permanently excommunicate the energy industry from the conversation, the industry, fortunately, had a prominent voice at COP28.
We must realize that blindly throwing money at climate change, banning things, and picking winning and losing technologies will deliver the worst outcomes at the highest cost. Market forces are much better than central planning for lowering emissions—without destroying the economy—in developing countries that are the fastest-growing sources of emissions. Further innovation in the nuclear field, for instance, to drive down costs and increase efficiency would be a climate game-changer on the world stage.
Encouraging innovation is the best path toward rapidly and affordably cutting emissions, and the United States has been paving the way. It was encouraging, despite the conference's flaws, to see this on display at COP28. I was able to watch sessions on the importance of carbon capture technology and private sector leadership—areas we don't always hear about in the mainstream climate discourse.
The United States has led the world in reducing emissions because of innovation, specifically fracking and horizontal drilling that created a glut of cheap natural gas. Switching from coal to natural gas cuts carbon emissions. Building nuclear plants produces abundant clean electricity. The United States has led before, and we can do so again.
That's why calls to stunt US economic growth by paying ever-greater sums to foreign countries are wrong. The answer is helping US innovators develop and deploy the cheapest and cleanest energy technologies so that they can be exported around the world. We shouldn't predetermine what those technologies are. To reduce emissions, we'll need carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, next-generation nuclear and geothermal energy, and possibly even technologies that haven't been invented yet.
The way we facilitate this innovation isn't by distorting the market with subsidies, regulations, or mandates. The way we facilitate this innovation is by getting the government out of its own way. That means permitting reform to make it easier to build energy projects, transmission reform to get more clean energy on the grid, and reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission so that the United States can take nuclear energy leadership back from autocracies like China and Russia.
Ultimately, we need an approach that lets the market pick the cheapest and cleanest alternatives that the United States can export around the world. That's a win for our economy and the environment. It's also the only serious approach to tackling the emissions problem.
https://humanprogress.org/takeaways-from-the-un-climate-conference/
Quote from: Thiel on December 14, 2023, 09:32:39 PMAt COP27, around 315 private jet journeys took place.
How the hell can progtards condone this blatant hypocrisy every year.
This editorial appeared in the Toronto Sun.
Nothing Canada does about climate change will ever be enough to satisfy the "net zero" emissions crowd, to which Trudeau and Guilbeault cater.
The reason is that the deck is stacked against Canada from the start, because we are the coldest and second-largest country on earth, with a relatively small population and a resource-based economy.
Because of that, Canada will always be condemned as one of the world's worst "per capita" contributors to global warming, as if every family has an oil well in its backyard.
In the real world, our emissions — 1.6% of the global total — are not enough to materially impact climate change, as reported by Canada's independent, non-partisan parliamentary budget officer.
The argument Trudeau and Co. make when facing international criticism about not doing enough to address climate change is that things would be worse under the Conservatives.
That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the question of where more than $200 billion of public money the Trudeau government is spending to fight climate change going.
Quote from: Brent on December 17, 2023, 02:58:50 PMHow the hell can progtards condone this blatant hypocrisy every year.
How can we the public take seriously any of the many, many climate NGO's that do not condemn these ostentatious spectacles.
The earth's population will be about 9 billion by 2050. Almost all of the growth in population will be in developing countries. They will all want cheap reliable electricity, and transportation. Wind and solar will not provide that for them.
Developed countries may reach net zero, but we will not end fossils in the coming decades. Not a chance with so many more people wanting power, air conditioning, and transportation.
I wasn't sure which thread to post this in, so I will post it here.
The jet setters that are provileged enough to attend the COP summits, want to spend a fortune of other people's money on things that are not going to provide much value to people.
Adjusting to climate change is the way to move forward
QuoteUnited States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry says it will take trillions of dollars to "solve" climate change. Then he says "there is not enough money in any country in the world to actually solve this problem."
Kerry has little understanding of money or how it's created. He's a multi-millionaire because he married a rich woman. Now he wants to take more of your money to pretend to affect climate change.
Bjorn Lomborg, an author and former director of the Danish government's Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI), points out there are better things society should spend money on.
Lomborg acknowledges a warmer climate brings problems. "As temperatures get higher, seawater, like everything else, expands. So we're going to maybe see three feet of sea level rise. Then they say, 'So everybody who lives within three feet of sea level, they'll have to move!' Well, no. If you actually look at what people do, they built dikes and so they don't have to move."
People in Holland did that years ago. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level. In some areas, it's 22 feet below. Yet the country thrives. That's the way to deal with climate change — adjust to it.
"Fewer people are going to get flooded every year, despite the fact that you have much higher sea level rise. The total cost for Holland over the last half-century is about $10 billion," says Lomborg. "Not nothing, but very little for an advanced economy over 50 years."
For saying things like that, Lomborg is labelled "the devil."
"The problem here is unmitigated scaremongering," he replies. "A new survey shows that 60% of all people in rich countries now believe it's likely or very likely that unmitigated climate change will lead to the end of mankind. This is what you get when you have constant fearmongering in the media."
Some people now say they will not have children because they're convinced climate change will destroy the world. Lomborg points out how counterproductive that would be: "We need your kids to make sure the future is better."
He acknowledges climate warming will kill people.
"As temperatures go up, we're likely to see more people die from heat. That's absolutely true. You hear this all the time. But what is underreported is the fact that nine times as many people die from cold. ... As temperatures go up, you're going to see fewer people die from cold. Over the last 20 years, because of temperature rises, we have seen about 116,000 more people die from heat. But 283,000 fewer people die from cold."
That's rarely reported in the news.
When the media doesn't fret over deaths from heat, they grab at other possible threats.
CNN claims "climate change is fuelling extremism."
The BBC says "a shifting climate is catalyzing infectious disease."
U.S. News and World Report says "climate change will harm children's mental health."
Lomborg replies, "It's very, very easy to make this argument that everything is caused by climate change if you don't have the full picture."
He points out that we rarely hear about the positive effects of climate change, like global greening.
"That's good! We get more green stuff on the planet. My argument is not that climate change is great or overall positive. It's simply that, just like every other thing, it has pluses and minuses. ... Only reporting on the minuses, and only emphasizing worst-case outcomes, is not a good way to inform people."
https://winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/stossel-adjusting-to-climate-change-is-the-way-to-move-forward/wcm/acf59278-c427-4c47-9ac7-59d41bc7f160
Trudeau's cabinet has a huge carbon footprint, but they don't want us driving or even heating our homes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUn0S_922rI
Canada has taken climate alarmism to such an extreme that this country might not be a G7 country or possibly a G20 nation in the future. If we do become "Net Zero" it would have the same effect as taking a cup of water out of an olympic sized swimming pool would have on lowering the water level of that pool. That cup of water would come at a huge cost to Canadians.
QuoteAs was recently noted by Benny Peiser of Net Zero Watch, COP28 is happening while the Green Agenda is in deep crisis and is falling apart around the world.
There is a massive backlash against the cost of Net Zero policies. Renewable energy projects have been scrapped including major wind projects in the US and the UK.
Electric vehicle sales have slumped.
Germany is facing an energy crisis, frantically bringing coal fired plants back into service to replace the energy lost when they shuttered their nuclear plants for nebulous environmental reasons.
The Dutch Farmers party has made major gains in two successive elections after their environmentalist government in their obsession to achieve net zero tried to restrict them out of existence.
Argentina has elected a new president who has called climate change a "socialist lie." Even French President Emmanuel Macron is calling for the EU to pump the breaks on net zero regulations.
Why? Because net zero policies are unpopular and damaging. It is all well and good to talk about targets and goals and objectives, but when rubber hits the road and daily lives are affected, that's another story. People have come to see that pursuing these absurd policies comes at an enormous societal and economic cost.
If a country wants affordable, reliable power to keep the lights on and heat their homes, they need the baseload power that oil and natural gas provide.
Canadians can't afford groceries or pay their rent or buy homes. We are suffering an affordability crisis. The relentless taxation on our lives from a carbon tax to a second carbon tax (the Clean Fuel Standard), to Minister Guilbeault's newest schemes, are all part of the Net Zero policies that are destroying our economy.
Remember this is all fuelled by the preposterous notion we can somehow affect the climate if we reduce our greenhouse gases from 1.4% of global emissions to 0.4%.
https://www.affordableenergy.ca/cop28_the_grand_delusion?fbclid=IwAR2tzgru8xxAQhDLGxRKbaadPzlLZj0XENLQIdDX57GXMDk86Cab-qr-JH8